YouTube Announces Tool For Angry Copyright Holders

from the the-latest-magic-bullet dept

After many many months of saying the company was "working on it," Google has finally released the details of its tool to help angry copyright holders deal with their content being shared on YouTube. The tool doesn't sound all that surprising. Basically, the company tried to build its own version of Audible Magic's famed "magic bullet" approach to stopping unauthorized sharing. Of course, Audible Magic's solution has run into problems when people realized it doesn't work very well, and you have to wonder how well Google's homebrewed solution will work as well. It's not an easy problem to solve, and going back to the original Napster (which tried to add its own similar filter), people quickly find ways around the filters. There are two noteworthy things in the Google announcement. First, it requires copyright holders to upload their own copies so that Google can match them to the content on the site, and it offers the copyright holder a variety of options beyond just "block any copies." That's where it gets a little interesting. Copyright holders can also choose to leave the content up, but place ads on it, with a split of the ad revenue going back to the copyright holder. In other words, Google is at least encouraging copyright holders to consider that simply taking down the infringing content may not make as much sense as trying to make money off of it. Somehow, we doubt that too many copyright holders will sign up for this "leave it up, but with ads" program, but perhaps we'll be surprised.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, piracy, video
Companies: google, viacom, youtube

NLPC Continues Bogus Campaign Against Google Video

from the addressing-actual-questions-doesn't-make-headlines dept

Back in July, the National Legal and Policy Council put out a headline grabbing report about how (gasp!) there was copyrighted content on Google Video. We blasted the study for a variety of points that the folks at NLPC either didn't understand or chose to ignore in order to generate headlines. One would hope that a group that wants to be taken seriously would address those concerns. Instead, they simply waited a couple months and came out with a nearly identical report that makes the exact same mistakes the first one did. For a group that claims its whole purpose is to promote ethics, that's quite disappointing. It's also rather amusing that the group, which claims to be promoting transparency and corporate integrity, doesn't appear to make it easy to find out who is funding its activities.

The latest report highlights how the folks at the NLPC found copyrighted content on Google Video. What they fail to mention is that all new content is covered by copyright at the point of creation under US law -- so pointing out that there is copyrighted content on Google Video is like saying that water is wet. What they meant to say (but didn't) was that they found unauthorized content on Google Video. Perhaps the reason they didn't say that, though, is because it's impossible to know what is and what is not authorized without asking the copyright holder. There are plenty of major media companies who have learned to embrace YouTube and other video sites and they want their content shared on YouTube. However, the NLPC doesn't even bother to consider that this is a possibility. It also doesn't acknowledge the simple fact that there is no way for Google to know whether or not the companies approve of the way the content is being used, unless the content companies notify them -- which is exactly how the process works. In other words, Google is doing everything exactly as it should and is required to under the law. The NLPC also (again) blames Google for the actions of its users, never bothering to distinguish between the two and point out how the law clearly separates the responsibility of a service provider from the actions of users. Finally, the NLPC quotes bogus stats on the "costs" of copyright violations, never noting that the stats they're using have been widely discredited. Much of this was pointed out to the NLPC back in July, yet they don't appear to have addressed a single concern. Once again, for a group that focuses on integrity, ethics and accountability, you would have expected much more.

Filed Under: copyright, nlpc, video
Companies: google, nlpc

Viacom Accuses Guy Of Copyright Infringement For Showing Video Of Viacom Infringing On His Copyright

from the follow-that? dept

Ben S. was the first of many folks to submit to us this incredible story of Viacom's latest ridiculous claim of copyright infringement. As you're most likely aware by this point, Viacom is in the middle of a nasty $2 billion lawsuit with Google over what it alleges are videos that infringe on Viacom's copyright appearing on YouTube. Of course, in making those claims, Viacom has been known to be a bit too aggressive in taking down videos -- including some that clearly did not violate Viacom's copyright. This latest case, however, may be the most ridiculous.

VH1 is a Viacom property that has a popular TV show called "Web Junk 2.0." It basically just takes the more popular/funny/stupid clips that show up on YouTube every week and shows them on TV along with some goofy commentary from the show's host. I'd always wondered if Viacom compensated the owners of those videos -- especially given the company's position about YouTube. It turns out that neither Viacom nor VH1 compensate the video owners, or even ask their permission. It just assumes that it can use them. Most turn out to be perfectly happy (not surprisingly) to get this sort of free publicity. One guy thought it was so cool that he recorded the clip of Web Junk that featured his own video and posted that on YouTube so he could blog about it. And, in an incredibly ironic move, Viacom sent a takedown notice to YouTube forcing it offline. Just to make it clear: Viacom used this guy's work without permission and put it on TV. The guy then takes Viacom's video of his video and puts it online... and Viacom freaks out claiming copyright infringement. Effectively, Viacom is claiming that it's infringement of Viacom's copyright to display an example of Viacom infringing on copyright.

Filed Under: copyright, video
Companies: google, vh1, viacom, youtube

What Right To Privacy Do You Have In An Age Of User-Generated Media?

from the not-very-much dept

Dave writes in to point to a ruling by the "Press Complaints Commission" in the UK, saying that the media needs to be careful to respect individual's privacy rights in making use of user-generated media. As we all know, many news organizations have increasingly learned to leverage the fact that so many people are carrying around mobile phones that can take photos and record video. When news stories break, the news organizations are more than willing to make use of this content to add value to the story -- as they should. However, what if the video is taken in private somewhere and reveals things it shouldn't? That was the case before the PCC, where a news organization had used a student's cameraphone video of an unruly classroom in a story. The school complained that no one had given consent to be filmed. The PCC noted that the story clearly was a matter of public interest, but that the people in the video should have been hidden, so as not to be as easily identified.

Of course, this sounds good in theory, but becomes very tricky in practice. In fact, this story is similar to one a few years ago, where a school punished the students for filming an angry outburst by a teacher, rather than blaming the teacher for the outburst. The efforts to hide these videos often comes across more as a way to coverup the very problem that resulted in the filming in the first place. It's like blaming a whistle blower. At the same time, it's ridiculous to think that such content can be blocked. Sure, they can tell "the media" that it can't use that kind of content, but that won't stop the content from showing up on YouTube anyway. In fact, this ruling makes it harder for the "official" media to report on certain stories, while guaranteeing that others will do so instead.

Filed Under: newspapers, user-generated content, video

Google Kills Off Videos People Thought They Had Purchased

from the see-why-DRM-sucks? dept

It's tough for many to remember these days, following the growth of YouTube and free videos online, but in January of 2006, when Google launched its online video service it was supposed to change the world. Remember, they had all these partners signed up who were going to sell video content via Google? It seemed pretty pointless at the time and the near total failure of the video sales to take off simply confirmed it. One of the key points that seemed particularly poorly thought out was the decision to create yet another type of DRM that would require the content you bought to call home every time you wanted to play it. Plenty of people pointed out all of the problems with this idea, with one big one being that, should Google ever kill the service, the content people "bought" would no longer be available. Guess what? Google is killing off the service and the content people "bought" will no longer be available. Apparently Google is handing out credits for Google Checkout for those who bought videos, but they can't use those credits to buy the videos anywhere else. Of course, chances are many of those videos are now available for free on Google-owned YouTube, but that's a separate point. In the meantime, does anyone else find it ridiculous that anyone who makes or uses any kind of tool to circumvent this DRM to view the content that they legally purchased will now be breaking the DMCA's anti-circumvention laws and could face jailtime?

Filed Under: drm, google, video
Companies: google

Nonprofit Group Shows Misplaced Shock At The Fact That Google Video Has Copyrighted Content

from the this-is-news? dept

It's fairly stunning how often people try to blame Google for something that isn't its fault at all. Witness the latest coming from the nonprofit organization the National Legal and Policy Center. It's claiming that, shocker of all shockers, there's some infringing content hosted on Google's video service. And, this organization which claims the reason they're bringing up this important matter is because it's "focused on ethics and accountability," never bothers to actually understand what's going on and who should actually be accountable. It's not Google who is uploading the content here. The NLPC claims that this is a weak excuse but never bothers to explain how Google is supposed to know what content is up there on purpose with the support of the content owners and which isn't. In fact, one of the movies that the NLPC lists is Michael Moore's Sicko, which Michael Moore doesn't seem to mind being online. The NLPC doesn't explain how Google is supposed to police every single upload. It doesn't explain why the service provider should be blamed for the actions of its users. That's because it just wants to make a big statement and make Google look bad. And, to be honest, making such statements without understanding what's actually going on for the purpose of smearing a company doesn't seem particularly ethical or accountable for an organization that claims its focused on both things.

Filed Under: copyright, video
Companies: google

CDN Space Getting More Crowded

from the deliverance dept

Among the big winners from the explosion in online video are content delivery networks (CDNs), like Akamai. It was a darling during the dot-com boom and Wall Street is in love with it once again. Success, of course, breeds competition. Smaller rival Limelight Networks recently went public with much success, and now Korean Firm CDNetworks says it will soon enter the US market (via Data Center Knowledge). This is great news for content firms, which should benefit from price competition in the space. The question for Akamai is whether its product can be more than a commodity. If any company can do what it can with enough infrastructure investment, then ultimately competition will just come down to price, which is the last thing it wants to see.

Filed Under: cdns, video
Companies: akamai, limelight

Now That It's Getting A Cut, Warner Says Imeem's Not So Bad

from the protection-money dept

A service called Imeem launched a little while back, and it allowed users to build playlists of music, videos and photos and share them with their friends. Despite the fact that it didn't offer any way to download copyrighted music, Warner Music sued Imeem, saying it was making money on "the illegal use of free music." How quickly things change: Warner has now dropped the lawsuit and licensed its catalog to Imeem, in exchange for a cut of its ad sales. Paidcontent says the deal is part of a trend of media companies showing a willingness to cut deals with these sorts of companies, "having decided its better to bring in revenue" than fight in court. But looked at another way, Warner is charging Imeem for the privilege of promoting its music. It paid its lawyers to threaten the company with a lawsuit and hammer out this licensing/revenue share deal, when instead, it could have simply let Imeem be and embraced the promotional value of its own content. It's pretty unlikely that Imeem will deliver significant revenues to Warner; changing how it perceives its own content and evolving its business model seems the wiser long-term bet.

Filed Under: music, photos, video
Companies: imeem, warner